Republicans constantly say follow the constitution, so why rip up the 14th amendment?

If only there were something in the Constitution that puts together a process for pushing an Amendment which would repeal a previous amendment. Like, say, Article V.

If only we could show an example of where it has been done before. Like, say, the 21st Amendment.

I support the Constitution, which means I support the process to repeal Amendments.

That being said, nobody is pushing to "rip up the 14th Amendment." Nobody. The problem with the 14th Amendment is that the Judicial Branch has misinterpreted a few times. So maybe it should be clarified. The Judicial Branch was never given the authority to "interpret" the document which creates the bench on which they sit, but since they do it anyway, then Amendments should be considered to be rewritten so they can't misinterpret it. Responsible citizens support giving as little power as possible to activist judges.

The truth of the matter, the point of discussion currently , is whether or not anchor babies are citizens simply because they are born here. The 14th Amendment says "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since anchor babies are subject to the jurisdiction of the government of the homeland of their parents, it means anchor babies do not qualify as citizens under the 14th amendment.

So who is "ripping up" the 14th Amendment here? Conservatives who want it enforced as it is written, or liberals who conveniently leave out the aforementioned qualifier? It's fairly obvious that it's liberals who don't like it as it is written.

PAY ATTENTION! Conservatives haven't said 'rip up the 14th amendment'.

TRUMP did. Trump speaks for Trump NOT BY ANY MEANS for Conservatives. He made a

'general' statement and provided NO SPECIFICS to get attention focused on HIM. He doesn't

care what is required to 'amend' the Amendment; he's entirely unrealistic. NOT suitable for

election as President.

The 'sensible' way to apply the 'anchor baby' issue is to enact legislation within the Immigration

Laws that babies born IN THE US must remain with their parent(s). Mothers aren't granted

Citizenship by the birth of an 'anchor baby'; they're STILL required to complete Naturalization

procedures. DEPORT HER as an Illegal and the Law requires the baby to go with her.

Public Records will contain the proof of birth. When the child reaches 'Majority' at 18 or 21 years

it then becomes their CHOICE of where to live.

Meanwhile IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE to rewrite an Amendment to meet changed

circumstances. If I'm WRONG then it becomes a Constitutional issue for the Supreme Court to

decide.

Um, according to many legal experts, granting citizenship to anchor babies is NOT following the Constitution. No one is suggesting ripping up the 14th Amendment, merely that we follow it.

Think of it this way, if someone breaks into your house, do they have all the rights, privileges and access to your resources as those who live there or their invited guests? That's the question with respect to the 14th. The parents of anchor babies are NOT legally here and so their child's 'citizenship' is invalid.

The courts will hear this and we'll see.

Ohh They just want to trim the fat from the constitution and are mad at the Supreme Court right now. See 14th. Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. But it won't work.

The 14th Amendment isn't being applied as it was really intended. Plus, it's not going to take a repeal to enforce it accurately. All it will take is the Supreme Court to rule on it. The illegal alien lobby found a loophole and used it. Now it looks like that loophole will be closed.

When Republican say they support the Constitution they mean only the 2nd and 10th amendments. A republican thinks the rest of the Constitution is unconstitutinal!

The 14th was enacted in 1868 was to make freed slaves and their children US citizens. It was reaffirmed in 1898 when a question about a Chinese immigrant came up. I can be repealed but that would endanger the 13th amendment which I am sure that nobody wants to do except for the KKK.

You do realize how the constitution works right? As long as they want to propose it via amendment they are working within its constraints. Republicans and Conservatives aren't the side that just want to pretend certain amendments don't exist.

The hypocrisy here is that the Republicans already ripped up the 4th amendment. Why don't you jerks complain about that?

There's a difference between starting the conversation about changing the constitution and outright ignoring it.

Nobody credible is advocating not following the 14th amendment while it's still the law of the land. However there is talk about repealing or clarifying it. When it's repealed it will no longer be the law of the land. Talking about affecting change is not "ripping up the 14th amendment".

By your logic, the 18th amendment should still be in place because once instituted, talking about and moving toward legally repealing it would be "ripping up the constitution".